Darfur: Enough is Enough!

For several years now, we have heard a succession of world leaders lament the ongoing tragedy in Darfur. Their latest response: an arrest warrant for Sudan's President. Sudan's response: kick out international aid agencies.

Now this: news reports say four United Nations peacekeepers, three Nigerians and one Rwandan, were wounded, one critically, when gunmen attacked their vehicle in Western Darfur. The joint UN-African Union peacekeeping mission said the ambush took place Monday evening near the town of El-Geneina in West Darfur.

A spokesman for the peacekeeping force, Noureddine Mezni, said that Western Darfur has seen a rise in banditry and other small-scale attacks in recent weeks, but that Monday's attack is more worrisome.

"This time our peacekeepers were targeted," he said. "Before it was an issue of carjacking or breaking into the houses of our personnel or NGOs compounds. But this time it is a serious incident, and we strongly condemn this escalation and we are trying our best to identify the perpetrators and to take the necessary action against them."

How long can this sort of thing go on before the international community takes real action -- not paper moves like issuing an arrest warrant?

Last December we wrote about the recommendations for tough action reportedly proposed to former President Bush by an advisor:

--jamming all communications in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital. This would include all telephone calls, all cellular service, all Internet access. After two days, having demonstrated Sudan’s vulnerability, the United States could halt the jamming.

--apply progressive pressure to Port Sudan, from which Sudan exports oil and thus earns revenue. The first step would be to send naval vessels near the port. The next step would be to search or turn back some ships, and the final step would be to impose a quarantine and halt Sudan’s oil exports.

--The United States could target Sudanese military aircraft that defy a United Nations ban on offensive military flights in Darfur. A tougher approach would be to warn Sudan it will lose its air force — and then if it does not comply, to destroy all its military aircraft on the ground.

I don't see why it necessarily has to be the United States alone that undertakes the jamming, the blockade or the aerial action. A coalition would be preferable.

But the question is: when will the international community say enough is enough?